Forum:Soviets Arsenal
The list of stuff of the Soviets in mod Red Alert: Zero. Since Premier Yuri assumed control over the Soviet Union and founded the Greater USSR, the army structure has changed substantially, and the technology has improved at an alarming rate. Notable improvements include the advanced use of biotechnology and cybernetics, psychic technology, newer high altitude models of flak technology, and the perfection of nuclear and Tesla research. Soviet forces are more assault-geared, and designed to charge enemy lines to break them apart, using a combination of cheap expendable units, and protected assault units. Content Infantry Conscript *Full Desigantion: Conscript *Role: General Infantry *Cost: 100 *Strong against: Infantry *Weak against: Vehicles, Aircraft *Secondary Ability: Unknown *Heroic Upgrade: Better range, armor and damage *Primary Weaponry: AK-47 *Secondary Weaponry: None known- possible small supply of hand-grenades or AP rounds Hazza-the-Fox 01:19, November 4, 2011 (UTC) The Conscript is for most intents identical to the RA2 version. Foregoing proper armor, training and abilities to cut costs, conscripts are cheaper than Marines. Armed with AK-47s they can damage to all targets (especially infantry), and fire from ranges far further than any infantry SMGs or pistols, but not as far as a Marine's Xm8. Special abilities I'm not sure of. I don't think red-guard bayonet charge would be extremely necessary- if anything its a little redundant, to say the least (besides, that's what the attack dogs, terror-drones and pariahs are for). A single-shot grenade-launcher to help against tanks (like the Marines could possibly get) might prove a little overpowering when every conscript fires a grenade at once- although switching to hand-grenade mode, requiring the conscript to charge ahead a bit more, lob a grenade and clear out enemy infantry might be a little more balanced- though the whole conscript army could still wipe out any opposition by just charging at once). The only solution left is some kind of buff- like Starcraft-Marine stimpacks at the cost of a bit of health? Vehicles Flak Raider *Full Desigantion: BTR-160 Flak Raider *Role: Light APC, AA Support Vehicle *Cost: 800 *Strong against: Air targets, light vehicles *Weak against: Tanks, anti-armour *Secondary Ability: Disembark Passenger (6 infantry max) *Heroic Upgrade: NA *Primary Weaponry: 4x20mm Flak autocannon (or 1x50mm high-altitude Flak gun (HAF)) *Secondary Weaponry: (with HAF) Miniature 'side launchers' for firing botched flak shells at nearby targets. Hazza-the-Fox 00:29, September 2, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox The Flak Raider fills a nearly identical role to the RA2 Flak Track- with the only difference is it can hold another passanger, and it possesses better supressive-fire capabilities against ground targets. Its weapons are light, but equally effective against all targets. Engineers are still weighing up whether the primary armament should be a light-caliber Flak machinegun platform, or a mid-range artillery flak gun, with added side launchers for shooting botched flak shells at ground targets. VolteMetalic 09:21, September 2, 2011 (UTC): I would go with 50mm flak gun. And Heroic Upgrade would be bigger gun, like 57mm. Or some kind of new ammunition, which ignites in the air, or has some toxic waste, or magnetic-typed... no, that would negate the splash damage unless the enemy aircraft were flying VERY close to each other. Something in this sense. It doesnt have to be just additional weapon, but pgrade of previous, aditional equipment like speakers to inspire men etc. Hazza-the-Fox 02:44, September 3, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox Hmm, that could be good- you know, we could actually also have the Flak Track itself a minor artillery unit (which would be a good opportunity to implement the 'shrapnel shower' attack (only on a smaller scale). Either that, or the grenade launchers become an uncontrollable auto-weapon that gets attached to the vehicle, and sprays out smokescreens or actual flak puffs at nearby units, without affecting the main gun (which could be a light long-range shelling unit). I think your idea of toxic/irradiated (uranium) flak shells are a good idea- leaving a cloud of toxins that can wash around and linger about, and damage more aircraft as they fly past? There are a lot of options. VolteMetalic 08:08, September 3, 2011 (UTC): No, that would be too much for it :D But the shrapnel spray would be normally used against infantry, with an effect of "black cloud" :) Yes, thats fine. The grenade launcher will be uncontrollable weapon with 360° radius and minimal fire range so it works only against nearby enemy units. Or you meant it as part of "Dissembark Passengers"? Yes, thats what I meant, that the explosion leaves some toxic cloud in the air, and when any aircraft (friend or foe) fly through it it will start corroding it, but not into that big extend. Hazza-the-Fox 08:54, September 4, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox Fair enough- and I meant that the grenade launcher automatically keeps firing if there are any enemy units nearby. It is very inaccurate, but just offers some random cover fire. Mauler Tank *Full Desigantion: T-68 Mauler Tank *Role: Main Battle Tank *Cost: 1600 *Strong against: Vehicles, Structures (limited infantry capabilities) *Weak against: Aerial Units *Secondary Ability: Smokescreen *Heroic Upgrade: 50cal. Roof-mounted AA Machine Gun *Primary Weaponry: 120mm gun (robotically-autoloaded rounds) *Secondary Weaponry: 50cal. Coaxial Machine Gun VolteMetalic 11:40, August 30, 2011 (UTC): We should discuss here about what should be its Secondary Ability :P Hazza-the-Fox 14:33, August 30, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox Indeed! This will be a tricky issue, as I'm not really sure what would compliment it. Actually- now that I think of it, a really good idea that would encourage people to try to use this beast in close-quarters is to give it a smokescreen- it puffs out a cloud of smoke from the tank (the smoke will be at the feet of the units, so the player can still see them)- but it will reduce the attack of all enemy units caught in the cloud (possibly even the range)? It even has the benefit of a function that real-world tanks use (in some sense)! VolteMetalic 14:41, August 30, 2011 (UTC): Hmm... smokecreen can work like this, even reducing fire range, but it would envelop the tank, when you will have it selected, you will still see their silhouette, when youe enemy uses it, the better! It will more encourage players to use it :D The other possibility is that it will create "fake enemy targets" (game wise it will be the smoke clouds), on which enemy units will attack while yours will be hidden among the clouds and fire from there, or when retreating as a great distraction. Hazza-the-Fox 15:13, August 30, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox So you are suggesting that the 'smoke' objects themselves will draw enemy fire? That could work too... A lot of possibilities for this attack! VolteMetalic 15:40, August 30, 2011 (UTC): Yes, i suggest this :) Hazza-the-Fox 05:26, August 31, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox - the only issue we need to consider is if a player simply hits force fire on the proper targets a second time to avoid targeting of the smoke clouds immediately as they are created- otherwise I say it's worth a try! VolteMetalic 11:49, August 31, 2011 (UTC): AI probabvly wouldnt, and players arent everywhere, but yes, they can target the real enemy. VolteMetalic 21:01, August 31, 2011 (UTC): That will actually requires small change of the sketch, featuring the smoke grenade launcher(s) :) Hazza-the-Fox 00:38, September 1, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox That won't be a problem- I designed it just in case I might put some smoke grenade launchers in anyway (if for no other reason than aesthetics)! VolteMetalic 07:56, September 1, 2011 (UTC): So its settled than! Now I must model it, but recently I started making T-34, T-44, T-54/55 (or just T-55) and derived SU and ZSU, and I dont have that often mood to finish them that it can take a while. But I will start, I promise ;) Hazza-the-Fox 12:29, September 1, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox No problems! Tesla Tank *Full Desigantion: NT-3200 Tesla Tank *Role: Heavy assault, linebreaker vehicle *Cost: 2000 *Strong against: All ground targets *Weak against: Air, long-range defenses *Secondary Ability: Unknown- electro-magnetic sabotage weapon rumored *Heroic Upgrade: Tesla Bolts jump between multiple targets *Primary Weaponry: Mobile Tesla Reactor with twin 6000-AMP Tesla coils *Secondary Weaponry: N/A- possible models may include machineguns or smokescreens Hazza-the-Fox 03:53, November 2, 2011 (UTC) So, the Tesla Tank functions similarly to the Red Alert 2 version- only it is faster, sturdier, and does vastly more damage- virtually shredding any infantry unit or vehicle it shoots at. In essense, it is a bigger, faster Tesla Trooper. Note that as a large vehicle, it does not enjoy the unusually secure position its smaller infantry counterpart enjoys; any weapons that are good against tanks will be no different against this tank- it merely takes more damage. The design is based on attempts by engineers to incorporate Tesla Reactors into conventional tanks- the superior output was negated by the greatly increased size and cost of fitting the rest of the components in; until the weapons themselves were replaced also by a purely Tesla-based system. As a result, this tank is capable of carrying a greater armor package at great speeds, and diverting its energy into its gun when it needs to attack- as a result, the vehicle cannot fire on the move. The tank is rumored to have an electro-magnetic weapon of some kind- whether this is capable of shorting out vehicles instead of structures, fires continuous EMP interference, or other function is unknown. Soviet Engineers have also considered attaching standard machineguns, or smokescreen launchers to the vehicle to enhance survivability. The question remains is precise appearance- most likely it will carry the same general shape my old version did (and for that matter, the RA2 version it was based on, with some touch ups only. I was thinking of attaching riot-grills to the sides of it, or possibly the Mastermind instead. Hazza-the-Fox 03:55, November 2, 2011 (UTC) Or for that matter, its weapon could be an EMP substitute for a smokescreen?!?! It would definitely make good use of something that fended off incoming fire while it closed the gap... VolteMetalic 10:26, November 2, 2011 (UTC): So it is dedicated anti-armor unit with better protection than Mauler, right? :) For the ability, the EMP sounds good. RA3 Tesla Tank has a EM field, every vehicle and structure around it is disabled. Here, I thinked about it for a while and what about using the EMP in different way than just shoot it? But send it as a wave? It is based on Transformer Blackout, who in life-action movie was able to fire EMP fields into the ground (not directly under himself, but to the direction where he wanted it). When the EMP hit the ground, it changed into a wave which was expanding in width but weakening with the distance. Blackout from Transformers Aniamted was able to project the EMP by stomping, creating a large shockwave which was able to knock out others, but also shud down a structures. Tesla Tank might use one way (the expanding way) or another (shockwave). The machine gun wont look very well there, and EMP as well because it mgiht be the secondary abiltiy... I think no secodndary is required, or maybe a small Tesla-coil weapon against infantry which is too close, but no secondary weapon is the best option by me. Hazza-the-Fox 13:48, November 2, 2011 (UTC)In most senses, yes! That is precisely the idea! Although its weapon can also instantly kill any infantry unit (possibly a small group at a time), it is intended to be an anti-armor unit designed for charging into heavy vehicles that are normally tough to take down, and blow them away at short-range (being short-ranged adds a distinct equalizer to its intensity- and also prevents the tank being added to a 'ball of death' formation with other vehicles. The EMP is a tricky one to figure out- and a shockwave of some form (or function) is definetely a good attack. There are only a few things to weigh in; 1- as the tank is short-ranged and has a gun that can destroy most targets in short order, the difference with a vehicle-jammer is that it would likely buy the tank some spare shots from the group it charged into- which would make a fairly neat feature. 2- A defensive function might overlap the Smokescreen possessed by the Maulers, being a little redundant too. Not that there aren't viable alternatives, possibly. 3- Obviously as the Tesla Trooper has an ability to maintain a constant EMP feed into an enemy structure, allowing the Tesla Tank to do the same would be a little redundant; 4- the Mastermind is also likely to get a shockwave attack, (a variation of psychic psi-blast/ or perhaps a psychic lockdown that prevents the MM from controlling units while active, but all enemies caught within the wave are frozen in place)- either way, the Tesla Tank's special would probably be best doing the opposite to what the Mastermind does- be that a damaging attack, or a freezing attack. Either one is perfectly practical for either unit- with the implications of the fact that the T-Tank is currently a damaging attack unit, while the M-Mind is a non-damaging special-attack unit, and whether they would mix-and-match abilities so both can harm and both can throw a special attack, or if the Tesla Tank will be doubly offensive, while the M-Mind will specialize even more in abstract attack and disruption. Obviously, because the Tesla Tank is fast and the Mastermind is slow, the Tesla Tank would warrant a short-range shockwave and the M-Mind a much larger one. Some things to consider. VolteMetalic 19:38, November 2, 2011 (UTC): So it is also short-ranged? Also sounds fine, good balance for its firepower. For the secondary, another option is targeted EM pulse, which after contacting witht he target changes into the shockwave and disable everything in the nearby vicinity. This might be not in opposition with Mastermind or Mauler. Hazza-the-Fox 10:10, November 3, 2011 (UTC)Most definitely! About the same short range as the original RA2 Tesla Tank. More good ideas for the shockwave you have. Another possibility is that the shockwave does substantial damage (nowhere near as much as the main Tesla guns), and shorts all enemy vehicles and structures for a brief period of time; but is a slight friendly-fire risk (friendlies take mild damage only) until the vehicle is upgraded or gains experience. Another split from the ball-of-death advantage- or a slight daring risk for sending in a group to emit a shockwave). I'm kinda warming to the Mastermind's mass-disruption field shutting down the minds of every living thing around itself so long as the pilot maintains concentration (it's pretty freaky too)! VolteMetalic 11:41, November 3, 2011 (UTC): Yeah, I had an idea that the shockwave can damage all non-living targets (frying the electronics, essentially damaging the whole thing), but only a little, while paralyzing them with the EMP. Mastermind still can have its abiltiy, it wont interefere with Tesla Tank. Hazza-the-Fox 00:53, November 4, 2011 (UTC)Sounds good! Another interesting (and equalizing) idea is perhaps it also damages any infantry who use electronic weapons? Aircraft MiG Fighter *Full Desigantion: MiG 39 Air-superiority Fighter *Role: Air superiority and skirmishing, airstrike *Cost: 1500 *Strong against: Other aircraft, infantry, vehicles *Weak against: Anti-Air *Secondary Ability: N/A *Heroic Upgrade: EMP Bombs *Primary Weaponry: 20mm machinegun *Secondary Weaponry: Anti-surface bombs Hazza-the-Fox 14:13, November 2, 2011 (UTC) The MiG Fighter; finding a good balance between giving the Soviets some fair and equalizing air coverage and fast-strike abilities, without mirroring the Allies and their greater dependency for airstrike tactics- and also weighing in the real-life dogfighting capabilities of a MiG aircraft. In short, it is a multi-role fighter jet just like the Allied Raptor, capable of strafing targets with machineguns and bombing vehicles, ships and bases. The only difference is that the dogfighting abiltiies have been increased (especially the range it can engage enemy targets from), but to balance, its range for dropping bombs is reduced- and the bombs do not guide directly into the targets but instead create splash damage; thus making it more geared for fighting and less for bombing runs, without making it overly impractical to do so if the player REALLY wanted to- ultimately making the heavy-assault tactic more viable, and the Allies more focused on hit-and-run. If possible to program, the MiG would be able to make tighter strafing turns than a Raptor, spending less time having to fly out before veering around for another strike- being that real MiGs are particularly acrobatic. The main trick in reducing the extensive use of MiGs is the differences in the airbases for either side. Both sides need a Radar structure prior to building a Hangar for their general air units; however, the Allies' fighter bays are a component of the Radar structure (Airforce HQ), while the Soviets are a component of their Hangar instead- giving the Allies a headstart in fighter production. Also a possible option is for the Allies to have 4 fighter bays per Radar, and the Soviets only 3-4 per Hangar (if necessary). The MiGs gain a heroic upgrade of dropping EMP bombs that short out whatever they land near for a short time- to help them play a complimentary role to other attack units (including the Kirov). VolteMetalic 19:38, November 2, 2011 (UTC): The acrobatic of MiG wont be a problem, they would be more maneuverable. But I am not sure about the dogfighting, when it has only autocannon (machien guns arent used now on jets), while Raptor has missiles. That doesnt seems much fair. For bombs, I agree with them, and for secondary, RA3 resolved it that Apollo and MiG Fighters and Vindicator Bomber has the secondary to "Return to Base". They will be returning to their airfield with speed bonus. Here it can work just as well, it is quite neutral and for balancing right. For the name... why MiG x78? That in no way follows the naming system. Normally it would be MiG-78X, but even MiGs dont use even numbers, so more like MiG-79x. And than its really high number. Hazza-the-Fox 10:03, November 3, 2011 (UTC) Excellent. I don't really mind if the fighters simply have AA missiles rather than cannon/bomb combo, but generally the idea is that both aircraft have comparable weapons; merely that the Raptor's bombing ability is superior, while the MiG's skirmishing abilty is superior. A "Return to Base" or a Generals-style "Patrol the Skies" option is something I had in mind (where the selected planes leave their runways and fly a broad path around the base, in a 'patrol mode', to intercept any enemy air or ground). As for the name- simply a placeholder really; as I haven't yet found out which MiG brand is the best rival to the Raptor. VolteMetalic 11:41, November 3, 2011 (UTC): What about that MiG will ahve all three weapons, autocannon, missiels and bombs? AA missiles, autocannon maybe agaisnt both, and bombs agaisnt ground. "Patrol the Skies" is redundant, as you can select it normally in the menu to make a patrols. "Return to Base" is probably the best option. Well, MiG was developing Mikoyan Project 1.44, from which evolved Sukhoi's T-50 PAK FA, which is counter against Raptor. Last number of MiG is 35, so maybe 37 or 39. Hazza-the-Fox 01:03, November 4, 2011 (UTC) All sounds good! A potentially complicated but nice balance would be if it had finite AA missiles as well as finite bombs (or they were both the same ammo- so either AA fights OR bombing runs uses up its payload) and must either rely on its autocannon to fight afterwards, or must otherwise return to base to re-arm (providing a reprieve for enemy units, and an opening to attack with after losing a few units). The MiG in patrol would automatically use its AA missiles on incoming aircraft, and its autocannon on ground targets- but can still be manually be told to drop its bomb on ground units. The redundancy of patrol is fine, then return to base is indeed good! I'll probably go with MiG 39 (should definitely imply the newest model with a clear lead of the skies)! MYK Dropship *Full Desigantion: Mil-Yakolev-Kamov MYK-32 Dropship *Role: VTOL Mass-transport *Cost: 2000 *Strong against: NA *Weak against: Anti-Air *Secondary Ability: Disembark Passenger (massive capacity for an aircraft) *Heroic Upgrade: NA *Primary Weaponry: None- massive array of weaponry under consideration *Secondary Weaponry: None Hazza-the-Fox 03:58, October 27, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox: Finally back in action! Took me a while to figure out the best function of this unit (a Carryall/airlifter that picks up a single vehicle with its claws, or basically a massive, flying amphibious transport, with a carraige/cargo bay- and decided the latter one is the best- simply put the capacity to lift only one unit won't help much, while placing a small squad of Maulers- or possibly a massive horde of conscripts- could be devastating! So far I can't think of any weapons that would really help it (although acting as a huge flying fortress bristling with guns could possibly work). Its actual capacity would be smaller than the RA2 hover-transports, but still larger than anything else by a huge margin. Any thoughts? VolteMetalic 08:35, October 27, 2011 (UTC): First of all, welcome! :) For the unit, "Yak", or better said "YaK", is callsign of another Russian aircraft manufacturer, Yakolev :) For the unit, I have nothing to against it. In RA3 Twinblade has the exact job, only that it can also fight. Imagine a Mi-24 Hind with two rotors and hook to transport tanks under itself :P But I am not sure, it can transport single vehicle, or group of infantry, not both at once? Hazza-the-Fox 10:47, October 27, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox Hehe, that could be perfectly fine having a third aircraft manufacturer name (I mixed the Mil and Ka labels to imply some kind of gigantic collaborative project (plus on the concept art I was thinking of even adding a few Aeroflut badges to it)); For design I'm angling for mixing a few of the larger Kamov VTOL dual-rotor transports and the Halo together, with a few stranger twists. Function wise, something like the twinblade- only it carries an extremely large supply of units, making it an alternative to the Kirov Airships as something enemies would really try to keep away. I think for simplicity it should carry any combination of units the same way amphibious transports do- any combination so long as the units can fit in the space. The only difference is that the Dropship can't hold quite as many (for balance reasons- just enough so that it could drop enough units in an enemy base to be a worry- but not enough to be an obvious replacement for other transports). VolteMetalic 15:32, October 27, 2011 (UTC): Hmm... so in theory, it can transport 8 Conscripts, just as well as 8 Maulers? For the name, if it is a multi-corporation project, using the prefixices of all of them would be not fitting. MKY, or a conmbination of these like MYK. It would be something... unified, like in Russian "heavy cargo/transporting helicopter" or something. Hazza-the-Fox 03:15, October 28, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox Something like perhaps 4-6 maulers/ 8-16 conscripts/1 Devastator or Nuke Truck. And good call for the name- MKY or MYK is definitely better. VolteMetalic 11:22, October 28, 2011 (UTC): Thats quite a lot of Maulers and Conscripts. And you dont have to write your name after putting "Signature". :) These "waves" do it already :D Hazza-the-Fox 14:10, October 28, 2011 (UTC) I see; on that note, I may need some help knowing the exact procedures to make duplicates of these unit entries (I just copied and pasted the existing ones- with not quite as much success; and of course, whether the signature comes at the start or not; On another note, I'll probably need to set up some in the infantry sections to talk over concept art details VolteMetalic 17:53, October 28, 2011 (UTC): What do you mean? Sure, go ahead :) Hazza-the-Fox 07:22, November 1, 2011 (UTC) Never Mind, got it working! VolteMetalic 11:40, November 1, 2011 (UTC): Than, what might be its name, when it is MYK product? Hazza-the-Fox 23:06, November 1, 2011 (UTC) Hmm, I guess MYK Dropship? VolteMetalic 00:09, November 2, 2011 (UTC): ... Yes, that is an option :) Also, i presume that it replaces Kamov, right? Hazza-the-Fox 03:12, November 2, 2011 (UTC) Yep! Ships Structures Defenses Upgrades Discussions Gameplay VolteMetalic 07:00, August 22, 2011 (UTC): Welcome on the board :) Hazza-the-Fox 10:13, August 23, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox Thanks! Well, I think to start this off I suppose we could discuss how to organize these pages. VolteMetalic 10:33, August 23, 2011 (UTC): Redirected to Gameply Discussion. Hazza-the-Fox 11:44, August 23, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox Hmmm, not sure my last post is now, so what do you think of thse ideas? VolteMetalic 11:47, August 23, 2011 (UTC): It is in the other topic :D This is not the only one. Click on top of the page on "Red Alert: Zero", and once you are ther you will see the other topics :) Hazza-the-Fox 08:05, August 24, 2011 (UTC)Hazza-the-Fox Ok- so an overview of how the Soviets operate; Technology-wise, the Soviets use Tesla (and its sub-field, magnetism), Nuclear technology, Flak Technology and Psi Technology, along with advanced articulated mechanics. It is somewhat an evolution of the Red Alert 2 dychotomy that Allies were speedy, evasive but light-weight faction against the Big slow strong Soviets. Instead, with both sides having their share of hit-and-run, long-range, speedy, heavy, sneaky, etc units, the emphasis is that while the Allies are more Glass Cannon concentrated fire combat and forming strong battle lines, Soviets are more charge and disrupt combat, specifically geared to smash battlelines and break the enemy out of formation. Their units are designed to be used to absorb enemy fire either through sheer numbers or sheer sturdiness, distraction tactics, and forcing their way through heavily defended points. The Allied side is still the 'faster, swifter' side- but this difference is not as vast or apparent as before. Infantry vary from extremely cheap, weak, expendable cannon fodder (Conscripts, Pariahs) to expensive walking tanks (Tesla Troopers). With the intention of using one category to cover the other (works both ways- A single Tesla Trooper could absorb fire for a whole platoon of Conscripts). Life is cheap when Yuri is Dictator- unless the persons are professionals and worth the extra investment ;) Vehicles differentiate from Allied versions in various ways; Some trade accuracy for area-of-effect destruction, some trade damage for rate of fire (allowing a vehicle to engage larger groups of units). Generally, Soviet vehicles are much more expensive than their Allied Counterparts. Air Force- unlike Red Alert 2, the Soviets get a full compliment of aircraft- but their distinctiveness remains; Allied aircraft are generally better at speedy bombing runs than Soviet aircraft, and also cheaper and more easily accessible (also made possible by the Allied fighter bays (groups of 4) being part of their Radar structure, rather than part of the later Hangar structure (Soviet version only having 2-3 fighter bays). Their aircraft, however, are far better in general combat, and usually more versatile in other respects. The reason for this is to essentially reduce the Soviets ability to rely on fast bombing aircraft despite their already good blitzkrieg arsenal- but not deny it. It serves mainly to equalize the Soviets against the still-faster general Allied arsenal. The Navy is a simpler dychotomy; the contrast is that while Allied ships are more specialized for a specific function, most Soviet naval units are weaker, but more versatile (jack-of-all-trades units), with fewer- but very powerful- specializing units (Typhoon Attack Sub). Whilst an Allied player would need to built two ships to get a coastal bombardment + AA screen, Soviets need only build one ship that does both. I'll talk about structures in another topic ;)